DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of group (A1) and (B2) in the reply filed on 7/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, the requirement of species is now withdrawn. No claim is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 14-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-25 have been added.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-13, 16-25 are pending.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 17, and 20 have been amended.
The cancellation of claims 6, 8, 10, and 14-15 obviates the rejections of claims 6, 8, 10, and 14-15 set forth in the last Office Action.
The amendment of claim 9 overcome the objection of claim 9 set forth in the last Office Action. The objection has been withdrawn.
The amendments of claim 9 has overcome the rejection of claims 9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of claims 9 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in the last Office Action. The rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendments of claims 1, 3, 9, 17, and 20 have overcome:
the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0354391 A1, hereafter Zhang),
the rejections of claims 1-6 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constable et al. (“Solution, structural and photophysical aspects of substituent effects in the N^N ligand in [Ir(C^N)2(N^N)]+ complexes” Dalton Trans. 2013, 42, 8086-8013, hereafter Constable),
the rejections of claims 1-7, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishige et al. (JP 2013/187211 A, a machine translated English version is referred to, hereafter Ishige) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 63-64 of the reply filed 04/14/2026 regarding The rejections of claims 1-8 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim), the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 17-19 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang) set forth in the Office Action of 01/16/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that the rejection based on Li and Kim need to be withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The rejections refer to Compound of Li as modified by Kim, Compound of Li as modified by Kim (2) (sections 43 and 55 of the last Office Action). Those compound do not read on the limitation of Formula I of the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Li in view of Kim is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
Li discloses a compound ([0160], the fourth compound on page 41, hereafter Compound p95-1).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Compound p95-1 of Li has dibenzoselenophene group at the position corresponding to F1 of the Formula VII which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Li does teach that the fluorescent luminophore group of F1 in the Formula VII can be a benzoselenophene group represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
87
137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1I and R2I can be each hydrogen ([0122]-[0126]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p95-1 of Li by substituting the dibenzoselenophene group with a benzoselenophene group, as taught by Li.
The modification provides Modified Compound of Li.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Modified compound of Lee does not have deuterium; however, Li does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to Ra and Rb of Formula VII and R1I and R2I of the benzoselenophene structure
PNG
media_image2.png
87
137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
can be deuterium ([0014], [0126]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Li by substituting all the hydrogen atoms in the compound with deuterium, as taught by Li and Kim.
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim, which has identical structure as Applicant’s Formula I. New grounds of rejection are applied.
PNG
media_image4.png
321
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments see page 64-65 of the reply filed 04/14/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li/Kim/Zhang set forth in the Office Action of 01/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 65-66 of the reply filed 04/14/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-6 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constable set forth in the Office Action of 01/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see page 66-67 of the reply filed 04/14/2026 regarding the rejections of claims 1-7, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishige/Kim set forth in the Office Action of 01/16/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9, 11-13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims the ligand LA which can be LAi’-m or LAi-m’.
However, for some selections of i, i’, m, and m’, the corresponding structural formulas is not encompassed by the Formula I of the independent claim.
For example, claim 9 claims a structural formula of LA33-86, wherein LAi-86 is
PNG
media_image5.png
103
91
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; RE is R9
PNG
media_image6.png
87
86
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; and G is G1
PNG
media_image7.png
108
65
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. The ligand LA33-86, does not read on the Formula I because the deuterium atom is bonded to ring A and the benzene ring formed by R1 and R2 or R3 and R4 is not substituted with a non-hydrogen substituent.
It is unclear whether Applicant claims the structural formulas which is not encompassed by Formula I.
For the purpose of prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that Applicant does not claim structural formulas which are not encompassed by the Formula I.
It appears that the ligand LA33-86 is not the only formula which is not encompassed by Formula I. It is suggested to check formulas from LAi-86 through LAi-116, wherein RE is one of R9, R10, R23, and R24.
Regarding claims 11-13, 16, and 22, claims 11-13, 16, and 22 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 9.
Claims 9, 11-13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims the ligand LA which can be LAi’-m or LAi-m’.
However, for some selections of i, i’, m, and m’, the corresponding structural formulas is not encompassed by the Formula I of the independent claim.
For example, claim 9 claims a structural formula of LA33-86, wherein LAi-86 is
PNG
media_image5.png
103
91
media_image5.png
Greyscale
; RE is R9
PNG
media_image6.png
87
86
media_image6.png
Greyscale
; and G is G1
PNG
media_image7.png
108
65
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. The ligand LA33-86, does not read on the Formula I because the deuterium atom is bonded to ring A and the benzene ring formed by R1 and R2 or R3 and R4 is not substituted with a non-hydrogen substituent.
Currently claim 9 is dependent from claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which they depend.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claims 11-13, 16, and 22, claims 11-13, 16, and 22 are rejected due to the dependency from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1, hereafter Li) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 17, 19, 21, and 24, Li discloses a compound represented by one of Formulas I to X and used for an organic light emitting device ([0006]-[0015]). Li exemplifies a compound ([0160], the fourth compound on page 41, hereafter Compound p95-1).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose a specific organic light emitting device comprising the Compound p95-1 of Li; however, Li does teach that the compound of Li can be used as the emitter of an organic light emitting device ([0006]).
Li teaches the structure of an organic light emitting device comprising an anode, an emissive layer including an emitter and a host, and a cathode ([0165]-[0166]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound 95-1 of Li by incorporating it into an organic light emitting device, as taught by Li.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified organic light emitting device of Li comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound p95-1 of Li as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode.
The Compound p95-1 of Li has dibenzoselenophene group at the position corresponding to F1 of the Formula VII which does not read on the limitation of the instant claims; however, Li does teach that the fluorescent luminophore group of F1 in the Formula VII can be a benzoselenophene group represented by
PNG
media_image2.png
87
137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein R1I and R2I can be each hydrogen ([0122]-[0126]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound p95-1 of Li by substituting the dibenzoselenophene group with a benzoselenophene group, as taught by Li.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified fluorescent luminophore groups from dibenzoselenophene to benzoselenophene in the compound of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified Compound of Li.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modification also provides Modified organic light emitting device of Li (2) comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Modified Compound of Li as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode.
The Modified compound of Lee does not have deuterium; however, Li does teach that the substituents at the positions corresponding to Ra and Rb of Formula VII and R1I and R2I of the benzoselenophene structure
PNG
media_image2.png
87
137
media_image2.png
Greyscale
can be deuterium ([0014], [0126]).
Kim discloses Ir complex compound used for an organic light emitting device (abstract).
Kim teaches that deuterium has greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the substitution of hydrogen of an Ir complex with deuterium provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability ([0021]-[0022]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified compound of Li by substituting all the hydrogen atoms in the compound with deuterium, as taught by Li and Kim.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide greater atomic mass, lower zero point energy, lower vibration energy, and lower van der Waals force, and lower intermolecular collision by vibration such that the Ir complex provides improved luminescence efficiency, luminance, current efficiency, power efficiency, and thermal stability, based on the teaching of Kim.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the substituents from H to D at the position Ra and Rb in Formula VII of Li and at the positions corresponding to R1I and R2I of the benzoselenophene structure would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
PNG
media_image4.png
321
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim, meeting all the limitations of claims 1-5, 7, 19, 21, and 24.
The modification also provides Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim comprising an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Li as modified by Kim as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode, meeting all the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the Compound of Li as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
the compound does not have a 5-membered ring at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li; however, Li does teach that the ring L1 can be a pyrazole ring ([0116]). Li exemplifies a compound wherein the ring corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li is pyrazole ([0160], see examples including at least the 4th compound on page 41).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Compound of Li as modified by Kim by substituting the pyridine ring at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li with pyrazole, as taught by Li and Kim.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of pyridine with pyrazole at the position corresponding to the ring L1 of Formula VII of Li would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Compound of Li as modified by Kim (2).
PNG
media_image8.png
325
690
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2008/0194853 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 17-19, 21, and 24 above, further in view of Pang et al. (“A full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile applications”, SPIE, 03/29/2012, hereafter Pang).
Regarding claim 20, the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim reads on all the features of claim 17 as outlined above.
The device comprises an anode, an emissive layer (Compound of Li as modified by Kim as an emitter, and a host), and a cathode.
Li in view of Kim does not disclose a specific consumer produce comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim; however, Li does teach that the invention of Li can be used be for a consumer product (display or lighting devices in [0080]-[0081]).
Pang discloses a display device (“flexible active matrix OLED display” in Fig. 3) comprising an organic light emitting device (“C: OLED” in Fig. 3).
Pang teaches the display device provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application (title and abstract).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim by incorporating it into a display device, as taught by Li and Pang
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a full-color, low-power, wearable display for mobile application based on the teaching of Pang.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the emitters of an OLED would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides a consumer product comprising the Organic light emitting device of Li as modified by Kim.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Li teaches an Ir complex compound comprising a benzoselenophene group, an organic light emitting device comprising the same, and a consumer product comprising the same; however, Li does not teach an Ir complex having identical structure as any of the specific embodiments of claim 23.
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Li et al. (US 2016/0133861 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Li teaches an Ir complex compound comprising a benzoselenophene group, an organic light emitting device comprising the same, and a consumer product comprising the same; however, Li does not teach an Ir complex substituted by the specific substituent represented by Applicant’s Formula III, wherein at least one deuterium atom is bonded to ring A and the benzene ring formed by R1 and R2, or R3 and R4 is substituted with a neopentyl group as required in claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights